Eect of Adaptive Guidance and Visualization Literacy on Gaze Aentive Behaviors 28:43
[11] Nora Castner, Enkelejda Kasneci, Thomas Kübler, Katharina Scheiter, Juliane Richter, Thérése Eder, Fabian Hüttig,
and Constanze Keutel. 2018. Scanpath comparison in medical image reading skills of dental students: Distinguishing
stages of expertise development. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications.
1–9.
[12] Cristina Conati, Sébastien Lallé, Md. Abed Rahman, and Dereck Toker. 2017. Further results on predicting cognitive
abilities for adaptive visualizations. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Articial Intelligence.
1568–1574. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/217
[13] Francesco Di Nocera, Michela Terenzi, and Marco Camilli. 2006. Another look at scanpath: Distance to nearest neigh-
bour as a measure of mental workload. In Developments in Human Factors in Transportation, Design, and Evaluation,
D. de Waard, K. A. Brookhuis, and A. Toetti (Eds.). Shaker Publishing, 295–303.
[14] Andrew T. Duchowski, Jason Driver, Sheri Jolaoso, William Tan, Beverly N. Ramey, and Ami Robbins. 2010. Scan-
path comparison revisited. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA’10).
ACM, New York, NY, 219–226. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1743666.1743719
[15] Wolfgang Einhäuser, Merrielle Spain, and Pietro Perona. 2008. Objects predict xations better than early saliency.
Journal of Vision 8, 14 (2008), 18.
[16] Sukru Eraslan, Victoria Yaneva, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2019. Web users with autism: Eye tracking evidence
for dierences. Behaviour & Information Technology 38, 7 (2019), 678–700.
[17] Sukru Eraslan and Yeliz Yesilada. 2015. Patterns in eyetracking scanpaths and the aecting factors. Journal of Web
Engineering 14, 5-6 (2015), 363–385.
[18] Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2016. Eye tracking scanpath analysis techniques on web pages: A
survey, evaluation and comparison. Journal of Eye Movement Research 9, 1 (2016), 1–19.
[19] Leah Findlater and Joanna McGrenere. 2004. A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04). ACM, New York, NY, 89–96. DOI:https:
//doi.org/10.1145/985692.985704
[20] Mary E. Frame, Rik Warren, and Anna M. Maresca. 2019. Scanpath comparisons for complex visual search in a natural-
istic environment. Behavior Research Methods 51, 3 (2019), 1454–1470. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1154-0
[21] Mohammad Ghoniem, J.-D. Fekete, and Philippe Castagliola. 2004. A comparison of the readability of graphs using
node-link and matrix-based representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. IEEE,
Los Alamitos, CA, 17–24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2004.1
[22] Fabian Göbel, Peter Kiefer, Ioannis Giannopoulos, Andrew T. Duchowski, and Martin Raubal. 2018. Improving map
reading with gaze-adaptive legends. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications
(ETRA’18). ACM, New York, NY, Article 29, 9 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3204493.3204544
[23] Tamara van Gog. 2014. The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of
Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.), Richard Mayer (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 263–278. DOI:https:
//doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.014
[24] Joseph Goldberg and Jonathan Helfman. 2011. Eye tracking for visualization evaluation: Reading values on linear
versus radial graphs. Information Visualization 10, 3 (2011), 182–195. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871611406623
[25] Lewis R. Goldberg. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets
of several ve-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe 7, 1 (1999), 7–28.
[26] Joseph A. Harsh, Molly Campillo, Caylin Murray, Christina Myers, John Nguyen, and Adam V. Maltese. 2019. “Seeing”
data like an expert: An eye-tracking study using graphical data representations. Life Sciences Education 18, 3 (2019),
Article 32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-06-0102
[27] Nathalie Henry, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2008. Improving the readability of clustered social
networks using node duplication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14, 6 (2008), 1317–1324.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2008.141
[28] Kenneth Holmqvist, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost van de
Weijer. 2015. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press.
[29] Anthony Jameson and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2012. Systems that adapt to their users. In
The Human-Computer Interaction
Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 431–456.
[30] Eija Kaasinen. 1999. Usability challenges in agent based services. In Intelligence in Services and Networks Paving
the Way for an Open Service Market, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1597, Springer, 131–142. DOI:https:
//doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48888-X_14
[31] Slava Kalyuga. 2007. Enhancing instructional eciency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load
perspective. Educational Psychology Review 19, 3 (2007), 387–399. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9051-6
[32] John S. Kinnebrew and Gautam Biswas. 2012. Identifying learning behaviors by contextualizing dierential sequence
mining with action features and performance evolution. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educa-
tional Data Mining. 57–64.
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, Article 28. Publication date: August 2021.